(09-14-2017 02:18 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 01:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 01:04 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 12:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 11:00 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  ESPN is taking a bath with the LHN. They are stuck until Texas says so or the contract runs out. And like I said before if ESPN has such a hold on Texas why do some of their home games end up on Fox?

Why do Texas home games end up on FOX? FOX holds 50% of the T1 & T2 rights to the Big 12 until 2025.

Why did ESPN organize the LHN and sign it through 2031 and pay Texas an average of 15 million per year for it? To keep them out of the PAC and to gain leverage over a brand they want fully.

But more specifically neither Texas, nor ESPN, can unilaterally end the contract. They have to agree to do so. If the Big 12 goes away or Texas chooses to leave ESPN has the right to retain their T3 rights and to purchase their T1 & T2 rights. In the contract ESPN has specified time periods in which to make counter offers. It may not seem like much, but it is a significant obstacle for a rival network to overcome.

If it's not a right to match they can make all the counter offers they want and Texas is under no obligation to accept them. If Texas really wants to go to the B1G or Pac who at that point has an exclusive contract with Fox, ESPN can't do anything to stop them. ESPN can keep paying 15 mil a year for 1 lower level Texas FB home game and a couple BBall buy games and pay for all the operation costs that run 26 mil a year. I mean if they would really want to spend that much to mildly inconvenience the new conference and Fox for a few years then sure.

Yes, they signed that contract to get leverage over Texas and that plan backfired tremendously. Thats why the LHN is a road map of how NOT to set up a network. If Texas really wants to leave they will go wherever they want once the GoR is up. Not saying they will definitely leave ESPN, i'm saying ESPN doesn't have the leverage on them you are claiming they do.

I've pointed out the contract to you. Wedge has explained it. That's about it.

Yes, you explained your opinion and I pointed out why that isn't a set in stone fact.

I think you're right about Texas.

It all comes down to $$$.

ANY contract is up for renegotiation for the right price. In addition, ESPN answers to the muckety-mucks at Disney. Who knows what they're going to be thinking in 3-5 years especially considering corporations have a vested interest in profit, so YES, anything is possible.

I also think you're right, all things staying equal, the PAC or the B1G would gladly do without some tier rights in order to land the whale.

(09-14-2017 02:18 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 01:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 01:04 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 12:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 11:00 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  ESPN is taking a bath with the LHN. They are stuck until Texas says so or the contract runs out. And like I said before if ESPN has such a hold on Texas why do some of their home games end up on Fox?

Why do Texas home games end up on FOX? FOX holds 50% of the T1 & T2 rights to the Big 12 until 2025.

Why did ESPN organize the LHN and sign it through 2031 and pay Texas an average of 15 million per year for it? To keep them out of the PAC and to gain leverage over a brand they want fully.

But more specifically neither Texas, nor ESPN, can unilaterally end the contract. They have to agree to do so. If the Big 12 goes away or Texas chooses to leave ESPN has the right to retain their T3 rights and to purchase their T1 & T2 rights. In the contract ESPN has specified time periods in which to make counter offers. It may not seem like much, but it is a significant obstacle for a rival network to overcome.

If it's not a right to match they can make all the counter offers they want and Texas is under no obligation to accept them. If Texas really wants to go to the B1G or Pac who at that point has an exclusive contract with Fox, ESPN can't do anything to stop them. ESPN can keep paying 15 mil a year for 1 lower level Texas FB home game and a couple BBall buy games and pay for all the operation costs that run 26 mil a year. I mean if they would really want to spend that much to mildly inconvenience the new conference and Fox for a few years then sure.

Yes, they signed that contract to get leverage over Texas and that plan backfired tremendously. Thats why the LHN is a road map of how NOT to set up a network. If Texas really wants to leave they will go wherever they want once the GoR is up. Not saying they will definitely leave ESPN, i'm saying ESPN doesn't have the leverage on them you are claiming they do.

I've pointed out the contract to you. Wedge has explained it. That's about it.

Yes, you explained your opinion and I pointed out why that isn't a set in stone fact.

Actually, contract terms aren't a matter of opinion. They are questions of fact. Whether or not a specific contract term will prove to be a wise decision for either or both parties is a matter of opinion.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary (and I assume you have not read the actual contract), you are expressing an opinion that one of the most profitable business enterprises in the country isn't as competent as you are when it comes to protecting its own interests. That may be true, but consider me a skeptic.

(09-14-2017 01:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 10:50 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 07:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 07:53 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 07:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I've been a proponent of 3 divisions of 6 for quite sometime. The semi aspect is one reward, but keeping more schools invested deep into the season for that best at large spot is even more valuable to the schools in pursuit. Plus it yields enough regional games that rivals can be covered.

And in both the SEC and ACC the divisions at 18 break down quite nicely with regard to geography.

Fifteen I'm not as keen on because for one thing it is an odd number so the number of idle weeks has to be doubled to work it out. With 18 you can play the 5 in your division and rotate 2 each from the other two divisions and with 9 conference games you play everyone in your conference every three years. That still leaves 3 for scheduling a key OOC game or OOC rival, and having two left to guarantee 7 home games a year.

I like that format.

So do I and not mentioned yet by either of us is that it keeps the fans driving to most of the games they truly care about and the rotating teams add flavor and interest to the annual schedule. I think even without the wild card, which is key, that there is a tremendous upside by preserving regionality in an expanded conference.

I'm also most partial to 3X6. The problem I see with that, however, is that there aren't enough desirable adds that would simultaneously make all four remaining power conferences (and their media partners) happy.

Specifically, I don't see a way to get the B1G to 18 that won't leave the SEC weaker or the PAC without any dance partners.

If the SEC could just go to 18 on its own, and get permission to have a conference semifinal, then its doable.

I love a challenge:

B1G:
Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern, Ohio State, Purdue, Wisconsin
Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska
California, U.C.L.A., U.S.C., Stanford, Washington, Oregon

ACC:
Connecticut, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse, West Virginia
Boston College, Duke, Maryland, Notre Dame, North Carolina, Virginia
Clemson, Florida State, Louisville, Georgia Tech, Miami, Wake Forest

SEC:
Kentucky, Missouri, N.C. State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, South Florida
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M, T.C.U.

B12:
Arizona, Arizona State, Oregon State, San Diego St., Utah, Washington St.
Cincinnati, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Iowa State
Baylor, Brigham Young, Colorado State, Houston, Texas, Texas Tech

The Big 10 gives up the East Coast for far better brands on the West Coast.

The SEC picks up North Carolina and Virginia as markets without damaging the ACC's footprint, and they add 2nd schools in Texas and Florida.

The ACC gets a very nice gain with Rutgers and Penn State, and they pick Maryland back up and add West Virginia. They lose nothing that OOC rival games can't take care of.

The B12 survives and picks up the West Coast for markets, the LHN is converted, with ESPN's agreement, into a Big 12 network and FOX retains 50% of the T1 & T2. They give up a duplicate (T.C.U.) in a market that Texas controls, and adds Houston to counteract A&M's presence in the nations 4th largest city. They also add Colorado State.

From the Network perspective:
ESPN gets the SECN into North Carolina and Virginia with in state schools. They own the East coast with the ACC and the ACCN has all of the markets it needs. Notre Dame is all in. Penn State secures a large % of viewers. Reuniting Penn State, Pitt, and West Virginia generates a lot of pigskin interest in the Northeast. Syracuse benefits from it and because of that Connecticut basketball can be added. It's a win win for ESPN in the East.

Out West ESPN doesn't lose much except for the a small percentage of the PAC schools headed to the Big 10's T1 & T2 rights.

They lose nothing on the PAC schools headed to the B12 and pick up the TV network through the conversion of the LHN. Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas get to stick together and they now share T3 instead of fight over it. They lose an outlier (WVU) and a duplicate market (T.C.U.). They pick up the West coast and Colorado State and shore up Houston.

FOX loses nothing but gains key PAC schools for the BTN.

LOL! Maybe I wasn't very clear. I wasn't suggesting there isn't any possible configuration. Just that there wasn't one that actually has a chance of happening. And unless somebody appoints you or me as Conference Czar with power to move teams at will, your brilliant suggestion will have to remain in the realm of the hypothetical, just like all of mine do.

(09-15-2017 09:24 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 02:18 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 01:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 01:04 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 12:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Why do Texas home games end up on FOX? FOX holds 50% of the T1 & T2 rights to the Big 12 until 2025.

Why did ESPN organize the LHN and sign it through 2031 and pay Texas an average of 15 million per year for it? To keep them out of the PAC and to gain leverage over a brand they want fully.

But more specifically neither Texas, nor ESPN, can unilaterally end the contract. They have to agree to do so. If the Big 12 goes away or Texas chooses to leave ESPN has the right to retain their T3 rights and to purchase their T1 & T2 rights. In the contract ESPN has specified time periods in which to make counter offers. It may not seem like much, but it is a significant obstacle for a rival network to overcome.

If it's not a right to match they can make all the counter offers they want and Texas is under no obligation to accept them. If Texas really wants to go to the B1G or Pac who at that point has an exclusive contract with Fox, ESPN can't do anything to stop them. ESPN can keep paying 15 mil a year for 1 lower level Texas FB home game and a couple BBall buy games and pay for all the operation costs that run 26 mil a year. I mean if they would really want to spend that much to mildly inconvenience the new conference and Fox for a few years then sure.

Yes, they signed that contract to get leverage over Texas and that plan backfired tremendously. Thats why the LHN is a road map of how NOT to set up a network. If Texas really wants to leave they will go wherever they want once the GoR is up. Not saying they will definitely leave ESPN, i'm saying ESPN doesn't have the leverage on them you are claiming they do.

I've pointed out the contract to you. Wedge has explained it. That's about it.

Yes, you explained your opinion and I pointed out why that isn't a set in stone fact.

Actually, contract terms aren't a matter of opinion. They are questions of fact. Whether or not a specific contract term will prove to be a wise decision for either or both parties is a matter of opinion.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary (and I assume you have not read the actual contract), you are expressing an opinion that one of the most profitable business enterprises in the country isn't as competent as you are when it comes to protecting its own interests. That may be true, but consider me a skeptic.

You haven't read the contract either and seeing as how half of the Big XII TV rights are with Fox I doubt there is any langue that forbade Texas from being aired on Fox. I know you haven't read the contract either, so why act like we're all contract lawyers here. If we follow your logic then you are assuming one of the most profitable college athletic programs isn't as competent as you are when it comes to protecting it's own interests.

(09-15-2017 09:32 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 01:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 10:50 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 07:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 07:53 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  I like that format.

So do I and not mentioned yet by either of us is that it keeps the fans driving to most of the games they truly care about and the rotating teams add flavor and interest to the annual schedule. I think even without the wild card, which is key, that there is a tremendous upside by preserving regionality in an expanded conference.

I'm also most partial to 3X6. The problem I see with that, however, is that there aren't enough desirable adds that would simultaneously make all four remaining power conferences (and their media partners) happy.

Specifically, I don't see a way to get the B1G to 18 that won't leave the SEC weaker or the PAC without any dance partners.

If the SEC could just go to 18 on its own, and get permission to have a conference semifinal, then its doable.

I love a challenge:

B1G:
Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern, Ohio State, Purdue, Wisconsin
Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska
California, U.C.L.A., U.S.C., Stanford, Washington, Oregon

ACC:
Connecticut, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse, West Virginia
Boston College, Duke, Maryland, Notre Dame, North Carolina, Virginia
Clemson, Florida State, Louisville, Georgia Tech, Miami, Wake Forest

SEC:
Kentucky, Missouri, N.C. State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, South Florida
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M, T.C.U.

B12:
Arizona, Arizona State, Oregon State, San Diego St., Utah, Washington St.
Cincinnati, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Iowa State
Baylor, Brigham Young, Colorado State, Houston, Texas, Texas Tech

The Big 10 gives up the East Coast for far better brands on the West Coast.

The SEC picks up North Carolina and Virginia as markets without damaging the ACC's footprint, and they add 2nd schools in Texas and Florida.

The ACC gets a very nice gain with Rutgers and Penn State, and they pick Maryland back up and add West Virginia. They lose nothing that OOC rival games can't take care of.

The B12 survives and picks up the West Coast for markets, the LHN is converted, with ESPN's agreement, into a Big 12 network and FOX retains 50% of the T1 & T2. They give up a duplicate (T.C.U.) in a market that Texas controls, and adds Houston to counteract A&M's presence in the nations 4th largest city. They also add Colorado State.

From the Network perspective:
ESPN gets the SECN into North Carolina and Virginia with in state schools. They own the East coast with the ACC and the ACCN has all of the markets it needs. Notre Dame is all in. Penn State secures a large % of viewers. Reuniting Penn State, Pitt, and West Virginia generates a lot of pigskin interest in the Northeast. Syracuse benefits from it and because of that Connecticut basketball can be added. It's a win win for ESPN in the East.

Out West ESPN doesn't lose much except for the a small percentage of the PAC schools headed to the Big 10's T1 & T2 rights.

They lose nothing on the PAC schools headed to the B12 and pick up the TV network through the conversion of the LHN. Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas get to stick together and they now share T3 instead of fight over it. They lose an outlier (WVU) and a duplicate market (T.C.U.). They pick up the West coast and Colorado State and shore up Houston.

FOX loses nothing but gains key PAC schools for the BTN.

LOL! Maybe I wasn't very clear. I wasn't suggesting there isn't any possible configuration. Just that there wasn't one that actually has a chance of happening. And unless somebody appoints you or me as Conference Czar with power to move teams at will, your brilliant suggestion will have to remain in the realm of the hypothetical, just like all of mine do.

So true! Even though it cuts against the grain of my political beliefs, college football realignment is in dire need of some dictatorial powers.

(09-15-2017 10:41 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-15-2017 09:24 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 02:18 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 01:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 01:04 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  If it's not a right to match they can make all the counter offers they want and Texas is under no obligation to accept them. If Texas really wants to go to the B1G or Pac who at that point has an exclusive contract with Fox, ESPN can't do anything to stop them. ESPN can keep paying 15 mil a year for 1 lower level Texas FB home game and a couple BBall buy games and pay for all the operation costs that run 26 mil a year. I mean if they would really want to spend that much to mildly inconvenience the new conference and Fox for a few years then sure.

Yes, they signed that contract to get leverage over Texas and that plan backfired tremendously. Thats why the LHN is a road map of how NOT to set up a network. If Texas really wants to leave they will go wherever they want once the GoR is up. Not saying they will definitely leave ESPN, i'm saying ESPN doesn't have the leverage on them you are claiming they do.

I've pointed out the contract to you. Wedge has explained it. That's about it.

Yes, you explained your opinion and I pointed out why that isn't a set in stone fact.

Actually, contract terms aren't a matter of opinion. They are questions of fact. Whether or not a specific contract term will prove to be a wise decision for either or both parties is a matter of opinion.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary (and I assume you have not read the actual contract), you are expressing an opinion that one of the most profitable business enterprises in the country isn't as competent as you are when it comes to protecting its own interests. That may be true, but consider me a skeptic.

You haven't read the contract either and seeing as how half of the Big XII TV rights are with Fox I doubt there is any langue that forbade Texas from being aired on Fox. I know you haven't read the contract either, so why act like we're all contract lawyers here. If we follow your logic then you are assuming one of the most profitable college athletic programs isn't as competent as you are when it comes to protecting it's own interests.

To the contrary. I assume that both sides are competent.

(09-15-2017 10:41 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-15-2017 09:24 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 02:18 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 01:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 01:04 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  If it's not a right to match they can make all the counter offers they want and Texas is under no obligation to accept them. If Texas really wants to go to the B1G or Pac who at that point has an exclusive contract with Fox, ESPN can't do anything to stop them. ESPN can keep paying 15 mil a year for 1 lower level Texas FB home game and a couple BBall buy games and pay for all the operation costs that run 26 mil a year. I mean if they would really want to spend that much to mildly inconvenience the new conference and Fox for a few years then sure.

Yes, they signed that contract to get leverage over Texas and that plan backfired tremendously. Thats why the LHN is a road map of how NOT to set up a network. If Texas really wants to leave they will go wherever they want once the GoR is up. Not saying they will definitely leave ESPN, i'm saying ESPN doesn't have the leverage on them you are claiming they do.

I've pointed out the contract to you. Wedge has explained it. That's about it.

Yes, you explained your opinion and I pointed out why that isn't a set in stone fact.

Actually, contract terms aren't a matter of opinion. They are questions of fact. Whether or not a specific contract term will prove to be a wise decision for either or both parties is a matter of opinion.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary (and I assume you have not read the actual contract), you are expressing an opinion that one of the most profitable business enterprises in the country isn't as competent as you are when it comes to protecting its own interests. That may be true, but consider me a skeptic.

You haven't read the contract either and seeing as how half of the Big XII TV rights are with Fox I doubt there is any langue that forbade Texas from being aired on Fox. I know you haven't read the contract either, so why act like we're all contract lawyers here. If we follow your logic then you are assuming one of the most profitable college athletic programs isn't as competent as you are when it comes to protecting it's own interests.

The Big 12 is a different animal. They retain their T3 rights as the property of the schools to sell as they see fit. FOX and ESPN split the T1 & T2 rights. Oklahoma sold their T3 to FOX, Texas and Kansas sold theirs to ESPN. The others didn't have T3 rights significant enough to really sell theirs to a major network. Iowa State has it's own cable network but it pretty local is scope, mostly in state, and I don't know much about its details.

So in the Big 12 FOX and ESPN alternate game selections for the first choice of telecast (T1) and subsequent telecast for the week (T2) rights. And since Texas is free to sell it's remaining games not picked up in T1 & T2 (usually just one or two games per year plus some minor sports, a few basketball games, etc.) that becomes the product for the LHN. And they are very free to sell those rights to ESPN which for the money they were offering (15 million a year was virtually unheard of for these rights prior to the LHN's creation) wanted some guarantees of their own, and got them, and hold them until 2031.

The contract is so strong that it prevents the prospect of a B12Network. The T1 & T2 rights expire at the end of the 2024-5. It will be possible for Oklahoma and Kansas to move at that time because their current T3 contracts will be expired as well. But Texas is locked up for 6 more years after that, unless they move to an ESPN held conference when their T1 & T2 rights expire in 2025.

And those are the facts. Texas agreed to the contract because they were grossly overpaid. ESPN agreed to the contract because they were willing to grossly overpay them in order to keep them from jumping to a non ESPN held conference. There are conditions which are contractually set for dissolving the contract, but they center around mutual consent.

(09-15-2017 11:42 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-15-2017 10:41 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-15-2017 09:24 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 02:18 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 01:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I've pointed out the contract to you. Wedge has explained it. That's about it.

Yes, you explained your opinion and I pointed out why that isn't a set in stone fact.

Actually, contract terms aren't a matter of opinion. They are questions of fact. Whether or not a specific contract term will prove to be a wise decision for either or both parties is a matter of opinion.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary (and I assume you have not read the actual contract), you are expressing an opinion that one of the most profitable business enterprises in the country isn't as competent as you are when it comes to protecting its own interests. That may be true, but consider me a skeptic.

You haven't read the contract either and seeing as how half of the Big XII TV rights are with Fox I doubt there is any langue that forbade Texas from being aired on Fox. I know you haven't read the contract either, so why act like we're all contract lawyers here. If we follow your logic then you are assuming one of the most profitable college athletic programs isn't as competent as you are when it comes to protecting it's own interests.

The Big 12 is a different animal. They retain their T3 rights as the property of the schools to sell as they see fit. FOX and ESPN split the T1 & T2 rights. Oklahoma sold their T3 to FOX, Texas and Kansas sold theirs to ESPN. The others didn't have T3 rights significant enough to really sell theirs to a major network. Iowa State has it's own cable network but it pretty local is scope, mostly in state, and I don't know much about its details.

So in the Big 12 FOX and ESPN alternate game selections for the first choice of telecast (T1) and subsequent telecast for the week (T2) rights. And since Texas is free to sell it's remaining games not picked up in T1 & T2 (usually just one or two games per year plus some minor sports, a few basketball games, etc.) that becomes the product for the LHN. And they are very free to sell those rights to ESPN which for the money they were offering (15 million a year was virtually unheard of for these rights prior to the LHN's creation) wanted some guarantees of their own, and got them, and hold them until 2031.

The contract is so strong that it prevents the prospect of a B12Network. The T1 & T2 rights expire at the end of the 2024-5. It will be possible for Oklahoma and Kansas to move at that time because their current T3 contracts will be expired as well. But Texas is locked up for 6 more years after that, unless they move to an ESPN held conference when their T1 & T2 rights expire in 2025.

And those are the facts. Texas agreed to the contract because they were grossly overpaid. ESPN agreed to the contract because they were willing to grossly overpay them in order to keep them from jumping to a non ESPN held conference. There are conditions which are contractually set for dissolving the contract, but they center around mutual consent.

I know all of that, my point was that the contract isn't enough to keep Texas from going to a hypothetical conference with a Fox only TV contract. Every conference would be okay with 6 years without Texases T3 rights. Some sort of agreement gets worked out like they always are and everyone is happy. That is if thats what texas really wants to do. Also once that contract is up ESPN is NOT going to renew it.

My entire point is the LHN contract doesn't give ESPN veto power over where Texas goes. Texas calls the shots on where Texas ends up post GoR.

You don't have to be in privity of contract to be boxed in by another entity that controls what you need to operate. Texas needs football games against Oklahoma, TCU, TT, etc. Texas needs to place it's non-football sports in a conference where the travel is not onerous. The LHN contract is not ESPN's limit of control over Texas. The limit of control extends to the partners Texas needs to thrive. If ESPN has Oklahoma, TAMU, TCU, TT, as well as everyone else of note in the Southeast plus ND, BC, Pitt, and Syracuse, then Texas has to weigh the cost of the repercussions of pissing off Disney. First and foremost that cost would seem to be onerous travel to the West Coast or subjecting Texas fans to the upper Midwest of the United States.

When you say "Texas calls the shots" those are in fact shots within a limited scope of options. The appearance of choice, is not always choice.

What that means is that the contract between Texas and ESPN is, as JR and Wedge have described and intimated, ironclad not just in text and legal and financial ramifications, but ironclad based on the structure of College football. To break an ironclad contract, there is pain beyond the stipulated damages.

(09-15-2017 09:46 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  You don't have to be in privity of contract to be boxed in by another entity that controls what you need to operate. Texas needs football games against Oklahoma, TCU, TT, etc. Texas needs to place it's non-football sports in a conference where the travel is not onerous. The LHN contract is not ESPN's limit of control over Texas. The limit of control extends to the partners Texas needs to thrive. If ESPN has Oklahoma, TAMU, TCU, TT, as well as everyone else of note in the Southeast plus ND, BC, Pitt, and Syracuse, then Texas has to weigh the cost of the repercussions of pissing off Disney. First and foremost that cost would seem to be onerous travel to the West Coast or subjecting Texas fans to the upper Midwest of the United States.

When you say "Texas calls the shots" those are in fact shots within a limited scope of options. The appearance of choice, is not always choice.

What that means is that the contract between Texas and ESPN is, as JR and Wedge have described and intimated, ironclad not just in text and legal and financial ramifications, but ironclad based on the structure of College football. To break an ironclad contract, there is pain beyond the stipulated damages.

No one is saying they will break the contract. Why are you putting words in my mouth? ESPN isn't going to let Texas play OU? You know that contract inly runs for 6 years after the GoR is up right? ESPN has as much incentive to keep Texas happy than to try and muscle them right? I mean why are people thinking ESPN is this all powerful entity that can break programs? The B1G sent a big chunk of content to Fox and in 6 years could send even more. The Big East left ESPN and is still a power conference and won a NC. The conference Texas currently resides in has half it's contract with Fox.

College sports and sports rights are a business, ESPN isn't going to piss off a potential very valuable partner to enforce a contract they actually want out of.

A key question is "how does the ESPN/Texas/LHN contract define tier 3"? Could it be defined in the contract as "games which are not broadcast under the Big XII contract"? If so, that would absolutely preclude Texas in another conference because then the entire schedule becomes tier 3... just saying.

(09-16-2017 09:26 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  A key question is "how does the ESPN/Texas/LHN contract define tier 3"? Could it be defined in the contract as "games which are not broadcast under the Big XII contract"? If so, that would absolutely preclude Texas in another conference because then the entire schedule becomes tier 3... just saying.

That would never be held up in any court and no way Texas would put themselves in such a bind. It's one or two (usually one) lower level FB games a year and 3 or 4 BBall buy games a year.